Causal Inference under Kink Bunching
折点聚集下的因果推断AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要围绕可操纵赋值变量下折点政策的因果效应与设计辅助识别展开,直接对应因果推断。
折点聚集下的因果推断AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Kinked policies change marginal incentives at a threshold, and agents respond by adjusting the assignment variable that determines their treatment. The bunching literature uses this response to estimate the elasticity of the assignment variable; policymakers often care about effects on other outcomes. We develop a framework for estimating causal effects of kinked policies on outcomes beyond the assignment variable when agents can fully manipulate it. Average effects are defined for two affected populations: bunchers, who locate at the kink, and shifters, who reduce their assignment values but remain above the threshold; shifter effects compare equal-mass intervals and require only rank invariance. Because a single kink identifies neither the counterfactual assignment density nor the counterfactual outcome function, identification is design-assisted: placebo groups and moving thresholds discipline the local shape of both objects, the focal group's unaffected observations pin down level and slope differences, and the restrictions are testable. Applying the framework to a kinked coinsurance schedule in China's medical insurance, we find that the loss of reimbursement above the annual cap sharply reduces outpatient visits, raises cost per visit, and shifts the composition of care toward hospitals -- effects that are invisible in a density-only bunching analysis.